标题： 出行活动终点特征如何影响共享微出行方式的选择？ 荷兰火车站出站出行的潜在类别选择建模方法 显示英文标题

标题： How do activity-end trip characteristics affect the choice for shared micromobility? A latent class choice modelling approach for train station egress trips in the Netherlands

摘要： 进出火车站的交通仍然对增加火车乘客数量构成了显著障碍。共享微出行（SMM），包括自行车、电动自行车、踏板车和小型摩托车，经常被引用为一种突出的解决方案，尤其是在行程链的活动端。通过声明性偏好调查，我们分析了荷兰人群中针对SMM、步行和公共交通（PT）在活动端的模式选择偏好。通过潜在类别选择模型，我们揭示了关于活动端模式选择行为的三类用户群体。最大的群体（58%）是多式联运共享爱好者，他们根据各种旅行特征之间的权衡做出选择，而没有强烈的模式偏好。他们是开放的、准备好的并且能够使用SMM。共享犹豫的骑车人（16%）对骑自行车有很强的偏好，尽管他们愿意尝试SMM，但他们可能觉得自己还没有准备好，认为使用SMM可能困难且危险。避之唯恐不及的公共交通使用者（27%）最有可能使用公共交通并避免使用SMM，因为他们觉得使用SMM太困难且危险。短距离步行的高偏好再次证实了需要制定以公共交通为导向的发展政策。对于较长的距离，公共交通应在需求量高的高密度地区的车站为主要关注点，在这些地方可以合理地提供高频次和密集的网络，而在需求较低的地区，SMM能更好地满足需求。提供多种SMM选项主要会导致同一旅客之间的竞争。 显示英文摘要

摘要： Access/egress travel to train stations continues to pose a significant barrier to increasing the number of train travellers. Shared micromobility (SMM), including bicycles, e-bikes, steps and mopeds, is often cited as a prominent solution, especially for the activity-end of the trip chain. Using a stated preference survey, we analyse activity-end mode-choice preferences for SMM, walking and public transport (PT) among the Dutch population. By means of a latent class choice model, we uncover three user groups with respect to activity-end mode choice behaviour. The largest (58%) are Multimodal sharing enthusiast, who choose based on the trade-offs between various travel characteristics, while not having strong modal preferences. They are the most open, ready and able to use SMM. Sharing hesitant cyclists (16%) have a strong preference for cycling and while they are open to using SMM , they may not feel themselves ready, stating that use of SMM can be difficult and dangerous. Sharing-averse PT users (27%) are most likely to use PT and avoid SMM as they find it too difficult and dangerous to use. The high preference to walk for short egress distances reaffirms the need for transit-oriented development policies. For longer egress distances, PT should be the primary focus at stations in high-density areas with high demand, where high frequencies and dense networks are justified, while stations in lower demand areas are better served by SMM. Providing multiple SMM options would result mainly in competition for the same travellers.